论马克思社会主义经济理论的二重性与抽象性

在马克思的社会主义理论体系中,存在着两种性质不同的社会主义及其产生方式,一种是资本主义自我异化,即资本主义生产力高度发达基础上产生的社会主义：一种是在生产力发展水平不变基础上,通过社会革命改变生产资料所有制形式而建立的社会主义。这使得它们之间的特征也完全不同。由于马克思没有完成他的研究计划,因此不仅使得他的经济理论,而且使得建立在此基础之上的社会主义理论,都是一种没有完成从抽象到具体转换的阶段性成果,带有高度的假设性,所以还不是一种成熟的社会主义理论。如果将被抽象的因素,如国家等纳入进来,这些结论必将被做重大修改。以邓小平理论为代表的“有中国特色社会主义理论”,就是为了完成这种抽象到现实的转换所做的探索．是对马克思社会主义理论的重大贡献。     

建国60年来中国地方行政区划和府际关系的变革与展望

地方行政区划和府际关系的重构是20世纪以来中国现代国家制度建设工程的重要内容．关系到国家的政治稳定和地方社会经济的可持续发展。建国60年来,中国地方行政区划和府际关系的调整和改革,基本上延续了传统中国的治理逻辑和治理术,即以属地管辖和行政内部发包制为特征、由职权同构和行政分权构成的多层级的地方政府结构为基本治理结构。为适应工业化、市场化和城市化的现实要求,中国地方行政区划和府际关系必须根据法治政府、责任政府和公共服务型政府的制度设计,对既有的地方治理结构进行改革和调整。以民主化和地方自治促进和改善地方治理,使地方行政区划和府际关系以及相应的产权、财税权和人事权等制度走向法治化、制度化和规范化。     

“省直管县”相关概念辨析

近年来,国内关于“省直管县”体制改革的呼声越来越高,然而,学界在对“省直管县”体制改革进行研究的过程中普遍存在着概念混淆和滥用现象.本文对“市管县”、“省管县”、“财政省直管县”、“行政省直管县”、“强县扩权”、“扩权强县”等相关概念及其相互关系进行了分析,并在此基础上探讨了“省直管县”体制改革模式及其演进逻辑.     

论丧失继承权的恢复

继承权恢复制度是和继承权丧失紧密相连的。继承人由于不当行为被剥夺继承资格后,依据继承资格能否恢复分为继承权绝对丧失和继承权相对丧失两种。我国《继承法》采取的是继承权绝对丧失与相对丧失并存的立法模式,并且决定绝对丧失和相对丧失的根据是继承人行为的恶劣程度扣危害性。继承权是一种私法上的权利,丧失的继承权能否恢复应该由被继承人决定。     

论遗嘱受益回避简

遗嘱受益回避,即因特定角色之承担从而能对他人遗嘱的成立或生效产生重要影响的入,不得从该他人遗嘱中受益。遗嘱受益回避的适用对象,包括遗嘱订立时遗嘱人的监护人、医疗人员和参与遗嘱订立的见证人、公证人及起草人,以及前列人员的配偶、直系血亲和兄弟姐妹。遗嘱受益回避的除外情形为：前述人员与遗嘱人之间有配偶、直系血亲或兄弟姐妹关系;即使某见证人或公证人没有参与,遗嘱也能有效成立;遗嘱起草人被列为受益人时,遗嘱人已征询无利害关系律师的独立意见。     

论不完整意义上的亲属拒证权--评2012年《刑事诉讼法》第188条

2012年《刑事诉讼法》第188条增设的亲属出庭作证义务豁免权填补了我国现代亲属拒证权制度的空白,丰富了《刑事诉讼法》人权保障的内容,显现出容隐制度呈现出回归的端倪,彰显了我国与现代西方法律制度相融合的趋势。相较于中国古代的容隐制度和现代西方国家的亲属拒证权制度,亲属出庭作证义务豁免权只能被视为不完整意义上的亲属拒证权。无论是权利主体范围,还是权利内容,亲属出庭作证义务豁免权都有进一步完善发展的空间;并且该规定在实施中可能遭遇被误读、阻碍案件证明、流于形式以及侵犯被告人对质权的风险。对这些风险和问题应当予以充分认识、合理应对,以使司法实践准确落实这一规定,并为确立完整意义上的亲属拒证权奠定基础。     

Globalization and regulatory change: The interplay of laws and technologies in E-commerce in Southeast Asia

Electronic commerce has brought about business and technological changes globally, and these global changes have given rise to major legal reforms across nations. In the fast-changing global digital economy, states need strategies to maintain competitiveness of their markets while simultaneously ensuring the secure and effective use of technologies involved in conducting electronic transactions. This paper examines how the use and recognition of electronic signatures are regulated in Southeast Asia – the region that has shown the most significant growth in global e-commerce in past few years. Based on a comparative analysis of the laws of four representative ASEAN member states – namely Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam, this paper argues that there is a regional trend towards adopting more liberal and technology-neutral standards for electronic signatures. Electronic signature regulation in Southeast Asia is now built upon limited technological neutrality (or the so-called “two-tiered” approach) as a shared regulatory understanding, but this approach is operationalized differently in each state due to distinctive national contexts. Within the common legal framework, each state has developed its own system of control and management with respect to higher-level signatures (using advanced technologies). The principle of technological neutrality, a concept originally developed for the regulation of technologies in response to the liberalization of telecommunications market, has been the central theme of discussions on the e-transactions policy-making scene. As the author shows, in the process through which states localize the global standards of technological neutrality, ASEAN as a vehicle of regulatory change has played an essential role in translating this principle to the national context.     

China's new regulatory regime tailored for the sharing economy: The case of Uber under Chinese local government regulation in comparison to the EU,US, and the UK

Although Uber's arrival in China has resulted in disruptive competition for incumbent taxi companies, it offers an attractive alternative in China's supply-demand-imbalanced urban passenger transport system. China's regulatory regime for Uber has evolved in three stages: from the regulatory vacuum prior to 2015 to its official legalization in 2015–2016, and the enactment of numerous local regulations in 2016, with specific and more demanding requirements for Uber. This policy is a part of the Chinese approach to the gradual liberalization of the urban passenger transport market. Policymakers should consider ‘fair competition’ as the guiding principle to balance the interests of sharing firms and incumbent service providers, as well as between different sharing firms. The core value of this principle lies in the benefits it provides for consumers and the way it engenders a pro-competitive market environment. The labor protection arrangements for sharing firms’ laborers should be more flexible and diversified. In order to recognize whether an Uber-Driver is an employee or independent contractor, a new standard taking into account a range of factors should be established through collective negotiations between the participants of the sharing economy, and dialogues between members of the judiciary, academics, and the policymakers. Further, consumer protection law and personal data protection provisions should apply when sharing firms misuse their distinctive algorithmic management model to compete unfairly to the detriment of consumers and other users. Ex ante regulatory measures designed to protect the personal data of users should be introduced for deployment in the context of the sharing economy. When enforcing these rules, a balance should be struck ensuring free data flow that is essential to sharing firms’ innovation and competition, and the need to ensure the level of data security required to underpin a well-functioning sharing society.     

The security of access to accounts under the PSD2

The revised Payment Services Directive (‘PSD2’) has been adopted to stimulate the development of an integrated internal market for payment services. In particular, it facilitates payment initiation services and account information services by granting the providers of these services access to the accounts of the payment service users. At the same time, the recitals state that the PSD2 guarantees a high level of consumer protection, security of payment transactions and protection against fraud.This paper answers the following question: To what extent does the access to accounts of the payment initiation service providers and account information service providers balance the development of the market for payment services with the security of the payment account and the privacy of the user? An analysis of the PSD2 shows that the development of the market for payment services has a higher priority. Security and privacy are ultimately subordinate.First, the PSD2 does not adequately protect the personal data of the users. The definition of ‘account information service’ is broad and covers a wide range of services. This allows the payment service providers to circumvent the limitations of the access to accounts.Next, the payment service providers have a ‘fall back option’ that allows ‘screen scraping’ if the dedicated interface is not functioning properly. Although this access is constrained by several safeguards, the fall back option gives the payment services provider unlimited access to the account of the user.Finally, the payment service providers have considerable freedom to arrange their authentication process as they see fit. The banks seem to be required to trust this process. The PSD2 and regulatory technical standards do not demand that a bank is able to verify the authentication or the integrity of the payment order.